Publications of Julie A. Tetel    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

%% Books and Monographs   
@misc{fds295061,
   Author = {J.A. Tetel and Tetel, JA and Carter, PM},
   Title = {Languages of the World. An Introduction through Culture and
             Cognition},
   Booktitle = {Wiley-Blackwell},
   Publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
   Year = {2014},
   Key = {fds295061}
}

@misc{fds295082,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Linguistics and Evolution. A Developmental Systems Theory
             Approach},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
   Year = {2013},
   Key = {fds295082}
}

@misc{fds295081,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Linguistics in America 1769-1924: A Critical
             History},
   Publisher = {Routledge; paperback edition, December, 1995},
   Year = {1990},
   Key = {fds295081}
}


%% Papers Published   
@article{fds295060,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Historiography’s contribution to theoretical
             linguistics},
   Pages = {443-469},
   Booktitle = {Chomskyan Evolutions and Revolutions: Essays in Honor of
             E.F.K. Koerner},
   Publisher = {John Benjamins},
   Address = {Amsterdam, The Netherlands},
   Editor = {Kibbee, D},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {January},
   Abstract = {Given the rich, multidisciplinary developments that have
             influenced linguistic theory and practice over the past
             fifty years, we historiographers are uniquely positioned to
             provide some much needed theoretical integration for the
             discipline in these post-Chomskyan times. We do so when we
             shift from practicing historiography as a subdiscipline to
             deploying it as a method of theoretical intervention. The
             goal of this essay is to sketch the results of a
             historiographically-informed critique of introductory
             linguistics textbooks — all of whose formats extend back
             to Leonard Bloomfield’s Language (1933) — and to offer
             the outline of a newer developmental linguistics which is:
             (a) reframed pragmatically by establishing from the
             beginning an embodied brain embedded in a context; and (b)
             organized not around the questions: What is language? or
             What do we know when we know a language? but rather around:
             How is it that hearing a sequence of sounds (or seeing a
             sequence of signs or reading a sequence of words) have the
             effects that they do? This conceptual shift entails
             addressing two new questions: How does a living being become
             a languaging living being? and How do we become the
             particular languaging living beings that we do? In order to
             answer these questions, both a phylogenetic script and an
             ontogenetic script need to be provided. Such an approach
             avoids the problem of the linguist who inherits a construct
             (e.g. Universal Grammar) and then must retrofit it to
             contemporary evolutionary and neurological research. It
             offers instead to our students — the future of the field
             — a theoretical account of our subject matter
             (language/languaging) whose evolutionary and neurological
             plausibility have been factored in from the
             beginning.},
   Key = {fds295060}
}

@article{fds295067,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Toward a history of American Linguistics},
   Journal = {Language},
   Volume = {86},
   Number = {1},
   Publisher = {Linguistics Society of America},
   Address = {Washington DC},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {Spring},
   Abstract = {Toward a history of American linguistics. By E. F. K.
             KOERNER. (Routledge studies in the history of linguistics.)
             London: Routledge, 2002. Pp. x, 315. ISBN 0415300606. $155
             (Hb). Reviewed by JULIE TETELANDRESEN, Duke University E. F.
             K. (Konrad) Koerner is not only one of the premier
             linguistic historiographers in the world, but he has also
             been one of the prime movers in helping to establish over
             the past thirtyfive years an international community of
             scholars devoted to the practice of reading the historical
             record of linguistics. Because the present volume gathers
             together mostly previously published and now updated
             articles on one (but not the only) of K’s long-standing
             interests, those who are interested either in the
             development of K’s thought or in the history of American
             linguistics will be greatly satisfied. The subject matter
             ranges from ‘American structuralist linguistics and the
             “problem of meaning” ’ (Ch. 5, first published in
             1970) to ‘On the sources of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’
             (Ch. 3, first published in 1992), as well as to ‘William
             Labov and the origins of socio - linguistics in America’
             (Ch. 10, first published in 1991). K also covers quite a bit
             of territory in between, meaning that much attention is
             given to the work and influence of Noam Chomsky. The ten
             chapters are well selected and well organized to give
             readers a solid narrative of American linguistics with an
             emphasis on the twentieth century. The volume’s coherence
             is further assured by the addition of two chapters with no
             published predecessors, namely ‘On the rise and fall of
             generative semantics’ (Ch. 6) and ‘On the origins of
             morphophonemics in American linguistics’ (Ch. 9), and by
             an appropriate introductory chapter, ‘The historiography
             of American linguistics’. The last chapter, ‘In lieu of
             a conclusion: On the importance of the history of
             linguistics’, should be read by all students of
             linguistics if only to learn where the concepts of
             ‘mark’ and ‘markedness’ and of ‘drag chain’ and
             ‘push chain’ come from (hint: not from Chomsky for the
             former pair and not from Labov for the latter; see p. 289).
             In always gentle and gentlemanly terms, K encourages
             linguists to know something about the history of their
             discipline in order to give their work depth and
             perspective, not to mention accuracy. K’s work can best be
             described as thorough and meticulous. When K is interested
             to investigate Chomsky’s reading of Ferdinand de Saussure
             (Ch. 7, first published in 1994), he reads everything, and I
             do mean everything, including the mimeographed version of
             Chomsky’s The logical structure of linguistic theory
             (1955/1956) and his eighty-five-page contribution to the
             Handbook of mathematical psychology entitled ‘Formal
             properties of grammars’ (1963), hardly a commonplace
             reference. Similarly, in ‘The “Chomskyan revolution”
             and its historiography’ (Ch. 8, first published in 1983),
             K does not overlook Chomsky’s unpublished M.A. thesis,
             ‘Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew’ (1951; see n. 5 on p.
             215 where K describes his failed attempt to track down
             Chomsky’s undergraduate essay that Chomsky has evidently
             claimed to be the source of his M.A. thesis). This is to
             point out that, for whatever subject he is working on, K
             comprehensively reads the primary works both published and
             unpublished, tracks down sources, sifts through footnotes,
             compares varying versions and editions of published work,
             reads the relevant correspondence and other archival
             materials, and generally dots the i’s. One such (almost
             throwaway) example is his remark to the effect that the
             mistaken date of 1915 given for Saussure’s Cours by
             Leonard Bloomfield in his 1933 Language has served as the
             source for later, usually North American, copyists
             (70–71). K’s thoroughness and meticulousness serve him
             well in achieving the goal of his historiography, which is,
             as he says at the beginning, a return to ‘(mere) history
             writing’, as opposed to the more recent use of the term to
             mean a ‘principled accounting of past developments and
             activities’ (2). That is to say that, for K, the historian
             should stand at a certain distance from his subject, should
             have no personal stake in the outcome of his research, and
             should be motivated ‘by a desire to set the record
             straight’ (154). He identifies one of his guiding lights
             to be the nineteenthcentury historian Leopold von Ranke, who
             is well known to have written that ‘history is neither
             supposed to judge the past nor instruct the present on how
             to act for the benefit of the future, but to depict how
             things really happened’ (155; with characteristic
             thoroughness K adds a footnote to give the full context of
             Ranke’s quote in German and the proper reference). With
             regard to the last 86110.qxd:LSA 1/2/10 4:18 PM Page 1 fifty
             years and the assessment of Chomsky’s place in the overall
             context of American linguistics, K certainly has his work
             cut out for him, given the amount and kind of commentary
             about that place that has come from within Chomsky’s own
             circle of admirers and supporters. K is more than up to the
             job of pinning down who said what when and where and of
             providing linguists interested in the historical record with
             a whistle-clean version of ‘what did X, Y, or Z know and
             when did (t)he(y) know it?’. Beyond that, K lets the
             record speak for itself, deeming it ‘safer to let the
             reader reach his own conclusions, rather than trying to
             impose a particular interpretation’ (153). An interesting
             case in point is K’s Ch. 9, ‘On the origins of
             morphophonemics in American linguistics’, which, among
             other things, traces the concept of ordered rules. One of
             K’s goals is to determine to what extent Chomsky’s 1951
             M.A. thesis and then his subsequent work was—or was
             not—influenced by Bloomfield’s ten-page ‘Menomini
             morphophonemics’, which appeared in Travaux du cercle
             linguistique de Prague 8 in 1939. The story crucially
             involves Chomsky’s supervisor Zellig Harris, whose Methods
             in structural linguistics (1951), which had been circulating
             in manuscript form since 1946, contains a section entitled
             ‘Morphophonemics’. That Chomsky knew of Harris’s
             Methods before 1951 is clear, since K notes at the outset
             that Harris thanks Chomsky in his preface for helping with
             the proofs (210). K’s story may start there (case closed:
             even if Chomsky never read Bloomfield’s paper, he would
             have absorbed the essentials of Bloomfield’s ideas about
             rule ordering through Harris’s work), but it does not end
             there. K’s main goal in Ch. 9 is to unravel what he calls
             the counter-history that has been woven over the decades
             about Chomsky’s supposed originality with respect to rule
             ordering, and which includes Chomsky’s repeated assertions
             about his ignorance of Bloomfield’s article. For instance:
             ‘It is rather astonishing’, K quotes Chomsky as saying
             in a letter to Frederick Newmeyer in 1988, ‘that no one at
             Penn suggested to me that I look at the Bloomfield
             article’ (241). Another instance: a pair of Chomsky’s
             supporters writing in 1989 claim that Bloomfield’s
             ‘article was so unknown in America that Chomsky tells us
             that he had not read “Menomini morphophonemics” until
             his attention was drawn to it by Halle in the late 1950s’
             (237; in a footnote K notes that the claim emanates from
             Chomsky himself and does not appear to be based on the
             writers’ independent research). K identifies the 9th
             International Congress of Linguistics held in Cambridge, MA,
             in August 1962 as the decisive event, ‘ably prepared and
             effectively run’ by Morris Halle, where the strategy had
             become ‘to sell Chomsky’s ideas as having little to do
             with the linguistics of his American teachers and
             predecessors … [such that] … connections with the work
             of Chomsky’s immediate predecessors had to be minimized,
             if not erased’ (234). It was after this event that the
             story of the noncumulative, that is, so-called
             revolutionary, nature of generative linguistics took shape
             and took hold and has now been reproduced in textbooks and
             historical accounts to such an extent that ‘this
             concoction has become accepted as historical fact by many
             followers’ (235). The way K sees it, by contrast, American
             linguistics during the 1940s and 1950s involved more
             evolution than revolution. His point, however, is not to
             chastize Chomsky—or anyone else—for distorting the
             historical record. In fact, he goes so far as to say that
             ‘it appears to me that Chomsky is at least doing what most
             of us do, and more often than not unconsciously, namely to
             reinterpret our own past as we grow older, while at the same
             time our memory of this past has become much less reliable
             than we may believe it to be’ (244). This is the point of
             K’s historiography: to let the record speak for itself
             rather than any one individual (or group of individuals) at
             any particular stage in a career or a theoretical moment, so
             that the reader may draw his own conclusions. One of the
             conclusions I draw from this episode is that Chomsky, in
             disavowing influences from immediate predecessors, is making
             a bid for originality that supports the further formalist
             tenet that utterances (and, by extension, entire theories)
             are unconditioned, in the behaviorist sense of the term, by
             immediate circumstance. This brings me to K’s longest and
             most thoughtful chapter, ‘The “Chomskyan revolution”
             and its historiography’, which, due to the preceding
             discussion, is easy to summarize as involving more evolution
             than revolution, depending on how one defines
             ‘revolution’. That there was a rhetorical revolution is
             not in doubt. But K puts in great doubt whether there was
             one in the Kuhnian sense of incommensurability of
             theoretical views about language, despite Chomsky’s
             repeated claims that he was not understood by his older
             colleagues during the 1950s (187). Given 2 LANGUAGE, VOLUME
             86, NUMBER 1 (2010) 86110.qxd:LSA 1/2/10 4:18 PM Page 2 the
             vantage point of 2010, it does not seem particularly
             fruitful to me to wonder, as James Mc- Cawley did several
             decades ago already, whether, if indeed there was a paradigm
             shift in the Kuhnian sense, then it was with Aspects of the
             theory of syntax (1965) rather than with Syntactic
             structures (1957) (see p. 190). Rather, it seems better now
             to historicize Kuhn, whose The structure of scientific
             revolutions (1962) was called a ‘sensationally successful
             book’ by Yakov Malkiel in 1969 (157–58). Forty years
             later, these post-Chomskyan times now call for a different
             historiographic model. Let me suggest Ludwik Fleck’s
             Genesis and development of a scientific fact (1979), first
             published in German in 1935 and with a foreword by Thomas
             Kuhn in the En - glish edition. Fleck’s understanding of
             the socially conditioned nature of cognition and his
             attention to the microdynamics of a developing
             science—particularly one as heterogeneous and
             interdisciplinary as linguistics has become—seems to me
             more of the moment than Kuhn; and please do note the
             differences between Kuhn’s title and Fleck’s. Unlike
             Kuhn, Fleck does not invoke radical discontinuities,
             so-called revolutions, in his accounts of intellectual
             history. Rather, he writes: ‘it is altogether unwise to
             proclaim any such stylized viewpoint [e.g. generative
             grammar— JTA], acknowledged and used to advantage by an
             entire thought collective as “truth or error”. Some
             views advanced knowledge and gave satisfaction. These were
             overtaken not because they were wrong but because thought
             develops’ (1979:64). So, thought developed from the
             Bloomfieldians to the Chomskyans, and now it has developed
             well beyond the Chomskyans. I think K would agree. And as we
             move on, it is good to know what we have moved on from. We
             have K to thank for setting the record straight. REFERENCES
             BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD. 1933. Language. Chicago: University of
             Chicago Press. BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD. 1939. Menomini
             morphophonemics. Études phonologiques dédiées à la
             mémoire de N. S. Trubetzkoy (Travaux du cercle linguistique
             de Prague 8), 105–15. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de
             Prague. CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1951. Morphophonemics of Modern
             Hebrew. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania M.A.
             thesis. [Facsimile printing of original typescript, New
             York: Garland, 1979.] CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1955/1956. The logical
             structure of linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
             [Parts revised during 1956.] CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1957. Syntactic
             structures. Berlin: Mouton. CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1963. Formal
             properties of grammars. Handbook of mathematical psychology,
             vol. 2, ed. by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene
             Galanter, 323–418. New York: John Wiley & Sons. CHOMSKY,
             NOAM. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA:
             MIT Press. FLECK, LUDWIK. 1979. Genesis and development of a
             scientific fact. Foreword by Thomas Kuhn, trans. by Fred
             Bradley and Thaddeus Trenn. Chicago: University of Chicago
             Press. [Originally published as Entstehung und Entwicklung
             einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre
             vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv, Basel: Benno Schwabe & Co.,
             1935.] HARRIS, ZELLIG. 1951 [1947]. Methods of structural
             linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. KUHN,
             THOMAS. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions.
             Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Program in Linguistics
             Duke University 307 Allen Building Box 90015 Durham, NC
             27708 [jtetel@duke.edu]},
   Key = {fds295067}
}

@article{fds295066,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {William Dwight Whitney in Perspective},
   Journal = {Metascience},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {Winter},
   Key = {fds295066}
}

@article{fds295059,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Pragmatism, Behaviorism, and the Evolutionary
             Script},
   Booktitle = {C. S. Peirce Papers},
   Year = {1998},
   Key = {fds295059}
}

@article{fds295079,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {L’ecole americaine},
   Journal = {Histoire des idees linguistiques},
   Volume = {3},
   Editor = {Auroux, S},
   Year = {1998},
   Key = {fds295079}
}

@article{fds295080,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Postmodern Identity (Crisis): Confessions of a Linguistic
             Historiographer and Romance Writer},
   Publisher = {Bowling Green State UP},
   Year = {1998},
   url = {http://julietetelandresen.com/media/PostModernIdentityCrisis-v3.pdf},
   Key = {fds295080}
}

@article{fds295077,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {The Behaviorist Turn in Recent Theories about
             Language},
   Journal = {Behavior and Philosophy},
   Volume = {20},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {1-19},
   Year = {1992},
   Key = {fds295077}
}

@article{fds295078,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {The Contemporary Linguistic Meets the Postmodernist},
   Journal = {Beitrage zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft},
   Volume = {2},
   Pages = {213-223},
   Year = {1992},
   Key = {fds295078}
}

@article{fds295065,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {On Genetic Encoding and Communication},
   Journal = {Language and Communication},
   Volume = {11},
   Number = {1/2},
   Pages = {29-32},
   Year = {1991},
   Key = {fds295065}
}

@article{fds295058,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Whitney und Bloomfield: Abweichungen und
             Ubereinstimmungen},
   Pages = {807-819},
   Booktitle = {History and Historiography of Linguistics},
   Publisher = {Amsterdam: John Benjamins},
   Editor = {Niederehe, H and Koerner, K},
   Year = {1990},
   Key = {fds295058}
}

@article{fds295064,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Review of G.A. Wells’s The Origins of Language. Aspects of
             the Discussion from Condillac to Wundt (1987)},
   Journal = {Historiographia Linguistica},
   Volume = {XVII},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {411-17},
   Year = {1990},
   Key = {fds295064}
}

@article{fds295076,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Skinner and Chomsky Thirty Years Later},
   Journal = {Historiographia Linguistica},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {1/2},
   Pages = {145-65},
   Year = {1990},
   Key = {fds295076}
}

@article{fds295063,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Review of P. Friedrich’s The Language Parallax. Linguistic
             Relativism and Poetic Indeterminacy (1986)},
   Journal = {Language in Society},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {600-04},
   Year = {1988},
   Key = {fds295063}
}

@article{fds295075,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {The Ideologues, Condillac and the Politics of Sign
             Theory},
   Journal = {Semiotica},
   Volume = {72},
   Number = {3/4},
   Pages = {271-90},
   Year = {1988},
   Key = {fds295075}
}

@article{fds295057,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Historiographic Observations on a Current Issue in American
             Linguistics},
   Booktitle = {Papers in the History of Linguistics},
   Editor = {Aarsleff, H and Niederehe, H and Kelly, LG and Benjamins,
             AJ},
   Year = {1987},
   Key = {fds295057}
}

@article{fds295062,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Review of Tractatus philosophico-philologicus de methodo
             recte tractandi linguas exoticas},
   Journal = {1984 Latin/German ed. C.F. Seidelmann (1724), Language in
             Society},
   Volume = {13},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {111-16},
   Year = {1987},
   Key = {fds295062}
}

@article{fds295056,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Images des langues americaines au XVIIIe
             siecle},
   Pages = {135-45},
   Booktitle = {L’homme des Lumieres et la decouverte de
             l’autre},
   Publisher = {University of Brussels},
   Editor = {Gossiaux, P and Droixhe, D},
   Year = {1985},
   Key = {fds295056}
}

@article{fds295074,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Why Do We Do Linguistic Historiography?},
   Journal = {Semiotica},
   Volume = {56},
   Number = {3/4},
   Pages = {357-70},
   Year = {1985},
   Key = {fds295074}
}

@article{fds295055,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Debris et histoire dans la theorie linguistique au XVIII
             siecle},
   Pages = {379-87},
   Booktitle = {Materiaux pour une histoire des theories
             linguistiques},
   Publisher = {Presses Universitaires de Lille},
   Editor = {Auroux, S and Glatigny, M and Joly, A},
   Year = {1984},
   Key = {fds295055}
}

@article{fds295072,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Arbitraire et Contingence in the Semiotics of the Eighteenth
             Century},
   Journal = {Semiotica},
   Volume = {49},
   Number = {3/4},
   Pages = {361-80},
   Year = {1984},
   Key = {fds295072}
}

@article{fds295073,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Les langues amerindiennes, le comparatisme et les etudes
             franco-americaines},
   Journal = {Amerindia},
   Volume = {6},
   Pages = {107-25},
   Year = {1984},
   Key = {fds295073}
}

@article{fds295071,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Signs and Systems in Condillac and Saussure},
   Journal = {Semiotica},
   Volume = {44},
   Number = {3/4},
   Pages = {259-81},
   Year = {1983},
   Key = {fds295071}
}

@article{fds295054,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Langage naturel et artifice linguistique},
   Booktitle = {Condillac et les problemes du langage, ed. J. Sgard, 275-88.
             Geneva: Slatkine},
   Year = {1982},
   Key = {fds295054}
}

@article{fds295070,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Linguistic Metaphors in Charles de Brosses’ Traite of 1765
             and the History Linguistics},
   Journal = {Linguisticae Investigationes},
   Volume = {I},
   Pages = {1-25},
   Year = {1981},
   Key = {fds295070}
}

@article{fds295053,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {From Condillac to Condorcet: The Algebra of
             History},
   Pages = {189-98},
   Booktitle = {Studies in the History of Linguistics 20},
   Publisher = {Amsterdam: John Benjamins},
   Editor = {Koerner, EFK},
   Year = {1980},
   Key = {fds295053}
}

@article{fds295069,
   Author = {Tetel, JA and Tsiapera, M},
   Title = {From Saussure to Chomsky: Linguistics and the Human
             Sciences},
   Journal = {Innovations in Linguistics Education},
   Volume = {1},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {3-23},
   Year = {1980},
   Key = {fds295069}
}

@article{fds295068,
   Author = {Tetel, JA},
   Title = {Francois Thurot and the First History of
             Grammar},
   Journal = {Historiographia Linguistica},
   Volume = {V},
   Number = {1/2},
   Pages = {45-57},
   Year = {1978},
   Key = {fds295068}
}